Predictability effects in auditory scene analysis: a review

Abstract

Many sound sources emit signals in a predictable manner. The idea that predictability can be exploited to support the segregation of one source's signal emissions from the overlapping signals of other sources has been expressed for a long time. Yet experimental evidence for a strong role of predictability within auditory scene analysis (ASA) has been scarce. Recently, there has been an upsurge in experimental and theoretical work on this topic resulting from fundamental changes in our perspective on how the brain extracts predictability from series of sensory events. Based on effortless predictive processing in the auditory system, it becomes more plausible that predictability would be available as a cue for sound source decomposition. In the present contribution, empirical evidence for such a role of predictability in ASA will be reviewed. It will be shown that predictability affects ASA both when it is present in the sound source of interest (perceptual foreground) and when it is present in other sound sources that the listener wishes to ignore (perceptual background). First evidence pointing toward age-related impairments in the latter capacity will be addressed. Moreover, it will be illustrated how effects of predictability can be shown by means of objective listening tests as well as by subjective report procedures, with the latter approach typically exploiting the multi-stable nature of auditory perception. Critical aspects of study design will be delineated to ensure that predictability effects can be unambiguously interpreted. Possible mechanisms for a functional role of predictability within ASA will be discussed, and an analogy with the old-plus-new heuristic for grouping simultaneous acoustic signals will be suggested.

Actively but not passively synchronized motor activity amplifies predictive timing

“…There is increasing evidence that stimulus predictability affects attentive processing (Morillon and Barbot, 2013;Calderone et al, 2014), auditory scene analysis (Bendixen, 2014), and the processing of sensory information (Rohenkohl et al, 2012;Cravo et al, 2013) and that it accelerates reaction times (Stefanics et al, 2010). Work from our laboratory has revealed better performance, as well as a larger P300 response in the human event-related potential to…”

The semantic aftermath of distraction by deviant sounds: Crosstalk interference is mediated by the predictability of semantic congruency

“…The fundamental determinant of deviance distraction is fairly well established: deviant stimuli yield distraction (both electrophysiologically and behaviorally) because they violate the predictions of our cognitive system (Bendixen, 2014;Bendixen et al, 2010;Bendixen and Schröger, 2008;Nöstl et al, 2012;Schröger et al, 2007). In a study contrasting orthogonally the roles of prediction violation and low-base rate probability, carefully arranged the trials of an auditory-visual cross-modal oddball task in order to ensure that deviant trials most often (but not always) occurred on two consecutive trials (an unexpected deviant trial predicted another deviant trial with a conditional probability of .8).…”

Automatic Change Detection in Older and Younger Women: A Visual Mismatch Negativity Study

“…Results of the present study point in the same direction. Auditory and visual mismatch negativities are interpreted as an ERP manifestation of an automatically emerging error signal, as elicited by the difference between the expected and current event [30-33]. This process involves two steps.…”